Stranger Danger!

if you want it just for looks a dual leading shoe can't be beat. if there's suspension, full floating and dual leading shoe is almost as good as a disk.

 

there is no rear brake force adjustment on any bike outside of how hard you press on the brake pedal. only a free play adjustment.

the point I was trying to make is that without front brakes, no matter how careful you are and no matter how much you "adjust" your riding style, you are taking a huge risk riding without a front brake. in an emergency situation, you WILL find yourself sideways as you go under a cage.

in any situation other than losing one of your brakes on the road, it is just stupid to ride. yes, if you do have an emergency where one of your braking systems fail, it could be possible to limp home. adjusting your riding style for added safety and the trip not being too long.

CN

 

All toughness and angsty rebel without a cause attitude aside -- In practice, its easier to lock a rear brake than it is a front brake.

With no front brakes, if you are in an emergency and do lock the rear brake, you'll wish you had your fronts.

A rear brake can stop you, yes. Both brakes can stop you sooner.

Pretty simple.

Choose wisely, Dr. Jones.

 

All these posts changed my mind about bikes with no front brakes.....


I will now never ride another chop without front brakes...

 

Screw that! I'm going to go rip the front brakes off of my MR2 right NAO!

Honestly it seems more of a trailer queen show bike.

 

anyone want to submit this to Mythbusters and let the prove it? 8O

 

I'm jumping in now.....

I prefer both brakes.

That being said, I'm going to agree with Orange/Black that if he adjusts his riding style because he already KNOWS what his bike can do, then I'm sure he's a safe rider and CAN control his bike in an emergency situation.

Going back to the comment of "if you need 40 feet to stop but are going to take 90"..............

I don't care how much brakes/parachutes/reverse thrusters/etc..... you have: if you're in a situation where you MUST stop in 40 feet but are GOING to take 90, you're going to be in an accident. Doesn't matter what you do......you're going too fast for the situation------period. You simply can't stop in the space allowed. THAT is science. THAT is why there are so many car accidents.....People can't stop in the space available, and they have FOUR brakes.

If you're going fast enough that you NEED 90 feet to stop, ANYThing with less space than that is going to be an accident, regardless.

As I said, I prefer both brakes, and all my bikes have both sets, and are fully functioning. MY riding style allows me to not even use the brakes much of the time. I don't ride like grandma, but I do let off the throttle well in advance of stops, and roll up to the stop at which point at tiny touch of one brake or the other is more than enough to stop. I do use both, but sometimes stop with one, or the other. If I'm running higher speeds, yes of course I apply the front a hair before the rear.

Now, in 13 years I have had to replace pads or shoes ONCE........it took THAT long to wear them down. I DON'T ride out of my ability range, and I don't ride in a manner needing panic braking all the time. I have had ONE instance where BOTH brakes were needed in order to stop before climbing a bumper. It was totally the fault of the lady who stopped for no reason in the middle of a 55mph zone to do a u-turn. I stopped with about half and inch to spare. BUT, if I had been paying closer attention, I might have seen her brake lights sooner.......could just the rear have stopped me? I bet if I had been farther back as I probably should have, (and would have, if I only had rear brakes), and if I had been paying more attention to her rather than looking at trees, birds, etc/whatever..........

All blah blah............

What I'm getting at is, if O/B KNOWS his bike, and it's capabilities, and HIS capabilities, I doubt that there will be any problems. We are supposed to always ride within our ability. If you can't control your bike in an emergency situation, you are an accident waiting to happen.

Hey, I didn't have any front brakes on ANY bicycle til I got my first 10-speed bike. The rear-brake-only bike NEVER got into an accident. WHY? because I rode within my ability level. BUT, if I had ever been in a spot where I HAD to stop in 4 feet but it would have take 9 ft to stop, even a 10 speed with both brakes would not have been able to stop in 4 ft if it were going to take 9 ft for THAT bike to stop.

People are trying to compare apples and oranges here:

If bike A has only rear brakes it can only stop so fast
If bike B as both brakes, it can stop faster
If bike A has both brakes it can also stop faster

All of those are true BUT:

If Bike A has to stop in 40ft, but it's GOING to take A 90ft.......accident
if Bike B has to stop in 40ft, but it's GOING to take B 90ft.......accident
if a car has to stop in 40ft, but it's GOING to take car 90ft.......accident
if ANYTHING has to stop in 40ft, but it's GOING to take it 90ft.......accident

I'm not going to call O/B's bike unsafe. I WILL say that if I were to ride it, I PERSONALLY would be unsafe until I could learn just what the maximum capabilities of the bike/myself are. THEN I would be perfectly safe as well.

I believe O/B KNOWS what his capabilities in an emergency situation are, and rides within those capacities.

It comes down to a simple matter of knowing what YOUR limitations are, and always riding well within those limitations, so that in an emergency situation, those limitations are NOT exceeded. ANY accident that takes place, takes place because SOME limitation of some sort WAS exceeded, whatever it may have been.

More than 'nuff sed..........

Dave F

 

No myths here for them to bust.

It is well established (read 'obvious') that while braking, rider and machine masses shift forward over the front wheel, increasing its contact patch area, increasing traction and increasing its braking efficacy.

At the same time, when masses shift forward, there is less mass carried by the rear wheel, its contact patch area and its traction are reduced, as is its braking efficacy.

Not gonna bust out my slide-rule to "prove it", but it is no myth that front breaks can and do provide more stopping power than the rear.

On my mountain bike, I run Front brakes only -- call me crazy.

All that said, rider preference is paramount, and always will be. Its not illegal (at least in my state) to run rear brakes only, so I don't see any reason to grief anyone who wants to.

I will, however, say this once more for good measure -- Choose wisely, Dr. Jones.

 

It's always nice to hear from someone that's objective!
I also prefer both brakes, was just trying to get people to understand a little better and not assume the worst. Both brakes are better than one, but is one brake as dangerous as people have perceived. They need to examine things from all angles and experience before jumping to conclusions.
You don't need mythbusters to think for you, guys.

 

How about we just toss brakes altogether? There are all these three-wheel bikes that have NO BRAKES and they don't get into accidents either. Never mind that it's because they are powered by three year olds and don't go very fast.

The heavy single-speed beach cruiser/granny bikes are what tends to come with only the rear brake. They aren't fast either.

Look, if you have something anemic, like that 7 horse Harley, or a half a lawnmower, or whatever, it's fine. However, taking a moderately powerful highway-capable bike like an XJ and tossing most of it's braking ability is unsafe, no matter how your remaining brake is adjusted. If you actually go out on the street, that is.

If you have some sort of a show queen chopper that can't get out of it's own way and can be outcornered by USS Enterprise the aircraft carrier... Well, so long as it only moves between trailer and show floor, I guess it's fine too. I suppose that falls under "knowing your limitations".


I am trying hard to figure out why front brakes need defending. What possible upside is there to removing them? Why would you do it?

 

what's the most famous bike ever built ? hint: it didn't have a front brake.
good read, good video
http://thevintagent.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... erica.html

 

Increasing following distance does not compensate for the sudden lane changer, the asshat who pulls out from a side street, or the child who runs out from an alleyway without looking. Giving up the front brake is nothing less than throwing away part of your rider's toolkit. Be the bunny.

 

Technically. K-Moe....If you compensate(?) with knowing your limits AND riding within them...you can work your way through it...at least that's what I've just learned. Of course, not everybody can do this, because they don't/didn't know their limits....Technically speaking....

 

If the dude selling that bike took the front caliper off for looks, why didn't he go all the way and remove the disc too? :?


My two cents.

No way I'd REMOVE braking power on a bike, or anything for that matter, that I'd be using in traffic on a regular basis. I like to think I drive and ride defensively, but there have been times when I've had to hit the brakes HARD to avoid an accident and animals, and was grateful for the reserve braking power of modern vehicles.

And on a related aside, having only the rear brakes on my kids go cart was the main reason I never put a more powerful motor in it like they wanted.

A show or parade bike though? I'd be tempted to expose the "swirlies" in all their curvacious glory. 8)

 

Because replicating that one thing you saw in a movie on the street is totally a smart idea. Then again, they did get doped out of their skulls in Easy Rider, so at the time it might have seemed like one.

Reminds me of some kid on a gun board asking which gun is best to bend bullets like they did in Wanted...

So, aside from letting you pretend to be Peter Fonda, is there any actual benefit to this silliness?

 

As Hank Moody would say, "Church!"

 

"Captain America" would have a greater rear weight bias, due to the extended forks. And 2 guys sitting on the back tire??

I saw this at Daytona a few years ago - - a front hub brake that does not look like a brake. Not by much.

http://www.360brake.com/photogal.html

 

Sounds like my favorite NASCAR quote, interview after an accident on the track: "we ran out of talent". - Travis Pastrana

 

Speaking of nascar, perhaps the best driver in roundy round racing, Dale Earnhardt, rejected a certain safety device, saying he was the best safety device in the car and didn't want the restriction in vision that it caused.

We know what happened to him.

 

I prefer to expand my limits by having modern(ish) equipment.

 

The rear-brake-only bicycle never got into an accident:

not because it was an anemic bike to begin with....I could do 35 going down hill with it.....and did.... but rather because I rode it in a manner that I KNEW just how much distance it took to stop at maximum controlled braking from different speeds. Example: if I new that it would take a bare minimum of 20 feet to make any emergency stop, then I'd better stay well more than 20 ft from anything at that speed. Anything that would jump out in the meantime, would be a problem.

Yes, of course having more braking ability means an even shorter stopping distance. But, it still comes down to knowing just what your bike can do for ITS OWN maximum braking ability, and riding within a manner that will not exceed that. ANY bike that has something jump out into that minimum braking distance and shorten it is going to be an accident regardless. That goes for cars, trucks, battleships, planes, anything.

O/B, I totally get what you're saying..... other's keep getting distracted by the "well if you had more brakes, you could stop faster' thought.

Well DUH.......ANY thing that has extra brakes will be able to stop faster.

If someone should want to go the the braking extreme, then put brakes on that will allow you to stop the bike instantly without skidding, screaching, etc...... But now THAT introduce another problem--the bike stops instantly the split second you touch the brake (that's awesome), except YOU are now an accident to clean up because when the bike stopped instantly, you're body kept going. Yeah, I know totally unrealistic. But people, it's not an argument of who's right or wrong-----

Its still a matter of RIDING YOUR EQUIPMENT IN A MANNER THAT YOU ARE IN CONTROL OF YOUR EQUIPMENT. That means KNOWING THE CAPABILITIES OF YOUR EQUIPMENT, AND YOUR OWN.

To keep arguing it, is like arguing which car is better......because it can brake quicker? Funny, my crappy little PT Cruiser is NOT the best braking car ever made, other's can stop a whole lot quicker. BUT, it's stopped in emergency situations a whole lot more than many other cars did. How do I know that? Well.....its still here, on the road, and I"m going to turn 290,000 miles in a couple weeks. Other cars with really top of the line brakes are sitting in the scrapyard. Why? Because people didn't stay within the limits of their braking ability.......or someone elses.

Let's move on, PLEASE.

nuff said.......not replying anymore.

Dave

 

+1
K-moe - nice chart, but of course the stopping distance is most likely calculated at the same speed for all bikes on the chart. If my rear only bike takes 180ft to stop at whatever speed they used to calculate, I would naturally reduce my speed.
As for the unseen danger of a car cutting in front of you or a child/animal running out in front, that would be difficult no matter how many brakes you have. According to the chart, both brakes wouldn't stop you in time for the latter scenario(95ft).